(JWR) --- (http://www.jewishworldreview.com) ONE WEEK AGO, Juanita Broaddrick went on national television and charged
that the president of the United States raped her some 21 years ago when he
was attorney general of Arkansas. What's happened since this explosive
accusation?

Nothing.

Oh, the president's attorney has issued a two-sentence denial, to which the
president himself carefully referred when asked about the accusation at a
news conference later in the week. But basically everyone in official
Washington -- and indeed around the country -- seems to want the story to go
away.

And it's not because they don't believe it -- some 54 percent of those
polled by Fox News allegation believe Broaddrick's version of events. But
the dilemma is, even if you believe Juanita Broaddrick is telling the truth,
what do you do about it?

First, if these were normal times and this president were a normal
president, we could call for an investigation. But Bill Clinton is already
the most investigated president in U.S. history. We know more about him --
especially his sexual predilections -- than most of us want to know about
any human being.

And most of what we know is loathsome.

Still, a huge
segment of the American public believes that no matter how badly Bill
behaves when he's alone with a vulnerable woman, it's simply none of our
business. What matters is Bill's effect on the economy. Period.

So we're not likely to get an official investigation of Broaddrick's
claim --- a dubious undertaking 21 years after the alleged rape, in any
event. A few news organizations have attempted to verify Broaddrick's
account -- most notably NBC News, which aired a 26-minute interview with her
last Wednesday watched by a paltry 14 million viewers (compared with 57
million who were watching the Grammy music awards at the same time).

A small number of major newspapers, including The Washington Post and the
Chicago Tribune, have conducted their own investigations of the incident.

According to those accounts, most of the verifiable details Broaddrick
provided have proved accurate.

Broaddrick came to Little Rock in April 1978 to attend a conference, and
stayed at the Camelot Hotel, sharing a room with a friend, Norma Rogers, who
returned to the room to find Broaddrick shaken, with horribly swollen lips
and torn pantyhose. Broaddrick told Rogers that then-attorney general Bill
Clinton had raped her. The two women put ice on Broaddrick's lips and left
the hotel to return home, without calling the police.

Did Bill Clinton rape Juanita Broaddrick? Or was it just "bad sex," as
Democratic political operative Susan Estrich repulsively suggested on ABC's
Sunday public affairs show "This Week"? Of course, it's impossible to know
precisely what happened two decades after the incident occurred, especially
since Broaddrick herself once denied that she was raped in an affidavit
filed in the Paula Jones lawsuit. But the pattern which Broaddrick describes
is eerily familiar.

To believe Bill Clinton, you must disbelieve an awfully lot of women --
those who rebuffed his advances and those who succumbed or, as in the case
of Monica Lewinsky, invited them. Bill Clinton's behavior with women is not
just immoral -- as even his Democrat defenders admit -- but pathological.

And yet women are Bill Clinton's staunchest supporters, recalling to mind
the 1980s best-seller "Men Who Hate Women ... and the Women Who Love Them."

What goes through the mind of Bill Clinton's women --- not Hillary, the
First Enabler, but Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Alexis Herman, Madeleine
Albright, the female members of his Cabinet? Doesn't any one of these smart,
independent women wonder what kind of moral deviant they work for? Shalala
once chastised the president after he admitted he'd lied to his Cabinet when
he denied the Lewinsky story. But he rebuked her, and she retreated in
silence.

What should we do about the Broaddrick story? The only people in a position
to do something are the president's staff, his fellow Democrats in Congress
and his feminist supporters. First, they must demand a public accounting
from the president. And if he refuses or if they have doubts about his
credibility -- and who cannot? -- their only avenue of protest is to shun
this woman-hater.

They could resign from his Cabinet, refuse his invitations to social
gatherings at the White House, in short ostracize Bill Clinton. It won't
happen. Not even Diogenes with his lantern could find an honest man or woman
in the crowd that surrounds this
president.

02/24/99: Unsettling news about ‘feminism’ --- for the NOW gang02/18/99: 50 years and trillions of dollars up in smoke --- literally?02/11/99: Why Dems have the most to fear02/02/99: Look who supports a people-of-color tax 01/26/99: When sports are truly a diversion01/20/99: Ken Starr as Mark Fuhrman?01/12/99: Leave Monica out of it01/05/99: Forget Danny Williams, what about Bubba’s trade and campaign abuses!?12/29/98: Ya never know12/15/98: Whose reality?12/08/98: Why the House must make sure Bubba gets his due punishment12/02/98: Remember when libraries were for expanding the mind!? 11/26/98: When Thanksgiving means more than commercialism11/17/98: To Ken S. --- if you'll only listen11/10/98: What did you expect?11/04/98: Shame on those who don't vote!10/27/98: It's spreading!10/20/98: It ain't over yet10/15/98: Mourning motherhood9/23/98: Sosa and the race card9/23/98: Believable and truthful are two different things9/16/98: Time for a new Amendment!9/08/98: When silence is truly golden8/25/98: Bears and blunders8/25/98: Only consistency about Prez's anti-terrorism policy: its inconsistency8/18/98: Is our 'broken-compass' beyond fixing?8/11/98: Reno's risk8/04/98: When Truth is of the highest odor7/28/98: No way to protect ourselvesagainst a nut's wrath7/22/98: These 'choice' advocates are being demonzied ... by the Left.7/15/98: Will 'neonaticide' become the new buzzword?7/07/98: Urge to mega-merge, stopped in time6/30/98: Why take responsibility ifsomebody else will pay?6/23/98: Blinded by the red, or is it the green? 6/17/98: Flotsam in the wake of romance6/10/98: We have a ways to go in the bilingual war 6/3/98: Tyson's triumph over tragedy 5/28/98: Why Univision's Perenchio is out to hurt his fellow Hispanics 5/20/98: Sometimes Buba actually tells the truth ... as he sees it 5/12/98: Chill-out on the chihuahua and ... Seinfeld5/8/98: The revolution is just about over
4/28/98: Let's face it: both parties are full of hypocrites4/21/98: Legislating equality 4/14/98: One down, many to go4/7/98: Mexican mayhem?3/31/98: Of death and details3/25/98: Americans are unaware of NATO expansion3/18/98: Intellectual-ghettoes in the name of diversity3/11/98: Be careful what you wish for ...3/4/98: The Press' Learning-disability2/25/98: 50 States Are Enough!2/18/98: Casey at the Mat2/11/98: The legal profession's Final Solution2/4/98: Faith and the movies1/28/98: Clinton, Lewinsky, and Politics Vs. Principle1/21/98: Movement on the Abortion Front1/14/98: Clones, Courts, and Contradictions1/7/98: Child custody or child endangerment?12/31/97: Jerry Seinfeld, All-American12/24/97: Affirmative alternatives: New initiatives for equal opportunity are out there
12/17/97: Opening a window of opportunity (a way out of bilingual education for California's Hispanic kids)